RE: Corporation to run for Congress in Maryland

RE: Corporation to run for Congress in Maryland (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Corporation to run for Congress in Maryland (2/3/2010 1:46:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy quote: ORIGINAL: Archer The decission didn't do what the fear mongers like to say it did. ....but Archer, the basis of that decision was that corporations must be treated in the same way as individuals under the law. A corp running for office is the inevitable endpoint of that insane principle. Only with regard to freedom of speech. Implying its application to anything else is overreaching.

Archer -> RE: Corporation to run for Congress in Maryland (2/3/2010 1:50:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail how so? You'll have to give me more than How so for me to know what aspect of my post you are questioning. Context man context. LOL

housesub4you -> RE: Corporation to run for Congress in Maryland (2/3/2010 1:50:04 PM)
This goes back to another screwed up SC ruling, that slaves where property and had no rights, now it seems property (ie; a corporation) has the same rights as humans. How times change Ahhh...the wonders of lawyers. I really hope Wal-mart does not run. I would much rather see a Kmart Blue light campaign.

DomKen -> RE: Corporation to run for Congress in Maryland (2/3/2010 1:52:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer It opened up ISSUE ads to unlimited spending, they still can't contribute directly more than the limited amount allowed to anyone else to a candidate's campaign or put out ads for specific candidates or parties according to the decision text. That is definitely not what the ruling says. It is quite explicit in allowing unlimited spending in favor of or opposing a candidate, the crux of the matter was whether the movie was basically an attack ad against HRC.

philosophy -> RE: Corporation to run for Congress in Maryland (2/3/2010 1:56:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy quote: ORIGINAL: Archer The decission didn't do what the fear mongers like to say it did. ....but Archer, the basis of that decision was that corporations must be treated in the same way as individuals under the law. A corp running for office is the inevitable endpoint of that insane principle. Only with regard to freedom of speech. Implying its application to anything else is overreaching. .......the problem is precedent, surely. The SCOTUS has made a decision that treats corps as individuals in the, admittedly, specific area of free speech. However, what prevents a corp using that decision to take further rights to itself? i think we'd both agree that the idea of a corp having all the rights of an individual is absurd, but the recent ruling gives very little leverage to oppose that absurd idea. Instead it lays the groundwork for it.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Corporation to run for Congress in Maryland (2/3/2010 1:57:51 PM)
FR Not only is there a 25 yo age requirement, but the candidate must also be a citizen. Corporations are not citizens. If you try to extend either requirement to a member of the Board or other legal representative of the coroporation, then there is no substantive difference between the corporation running or that legal representative. Waste of time that will go nowhere.

Archer -> RE: Corporation to run for Congress in Maryland (2/3/2010 1:58:32 PM)
BTW the other side of this has been ignored, Labor Unions and Special Interest groups are now just as free to spend their money on ISSUE ads. Also the ban only prevented the ads being run during the 60 days before the election, days 600 through 61 before the election have remained open to these ads.

DomKen -> RE: Corporation to run for Congress in Maryland (2/3/2010 2:01:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer BTW the other side of this has been ignored, Labor Unions and Special Interest groups are now just as free to spend their money on ISSUE ads. Also the ban only prevented the ads being run during the 60 days before the election, days 600 through 61 before the election have remained open to these ads. Once again no. The ruling applies only to corporations and doesn't overturn any of the laws dealing with spending by not for profit corporations so this ruling allows unlimited political spending by for profit corporations only.

Archer -> RE: Corporation to run for Congress in Maryland (2/3/2010 2:08:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Archer It opened up ISSUE ads to unlimited spending, they still can't contribute directly more than the limited amount allowed to anyone else to a candidate's campaign or put out ads for specific candidates or parties according to the decision text. That is definitely not what the ruling says. It is quite explicit in allowing unlimited spending in favor of or opposing a candidate, the crux of the matter was whether the movie was basically an attack ad against HRC. Quoted directly from the Majority Opinion available here http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf opinion of the Court I B "Before the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002(BCRA), federal law prohibited—and still does prohibit—corporations and unions from using general treasury funds to make direct contributions to candidates or inde-pendent expenditures that expressly advocate the election or defeat of a candidate, through any form of media, inconnection with certain qualified federal elections." So Try again Ken

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Corporation to run for Congress in Maryland (2/3/2010 2:12:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Archer BTW the other side of this has been ignored, Labor Unions and Special Interest groups are now just as free to spend their money on ISSUE ads. Also the ban only prevented the ads being run during the 60 days before the election, days 600 through 61 before the election have remained open to these ads. Once again no. The ruling applies only to corporations and doesn't overturn any of the laws dealing with spending by not for profit corporations so this ruling allows unlimited political spending by for profit corporations only. Wrong as usual. There are numerous references in the ruling that make it clear that there is no distinction between profit and nonprofit organizations wrt for purposes of FOS and campaign contributions. Just one that makes it abundantly clear: "No sufficient governmental interest justifies limits on the political speech of nonprofit or for-profit corpora-tions."

Archer -> RE: Corporation to run for Congress in Maryland (2/3/2010 2:12:59 PM)
Also directly quoted from the Majority Opinion debunking your assertion that it applied to for profits only completely. "Citizens United is a nonprofit corporation. It brought this action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. A three-judge court later convened to hear the cause. The resulting judgment gives rise to this appeal. Citizens United has an annual budget of about $12million. Most of its funds are from donations by individu-als; but, in addition, it accepts a small portion of its fundsfrom for-profit corporations."

mnottertail -> RE: Corporation to run for Congress in Maryland (2/3/2010 2:17:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy quote: ORIGINAL: Archer The decission didn't do what the fear mongers like to say it did. ....but Archer, the basis of that decision was that corporations must be treated in the same way as individuals under the law. A corp running for office is the inevitable endpoint of that insane principle. Only with regard to freedom of speech. Implying its application to anything else is overreaching. That is agreed for this decision, but not all decisions regarding corporations as 'a collection of individuals', or 'akin to any collection or group of individuals' (paraphrasing from opinion). Ron

DomKen -> RE: Corporation to run for Congress in Maryland (2/3/2010 2:30:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Archer It opened up ISSUE ads to unlimited spending, they still can't contribute directly more than the limited amount allowed to anyone else to a candidate's campaign or put out ads for specific candidates or parties according to the decision text. That is definitely not what the ruling says. It is quite explicit in allowing unlimited spending in favor of or opposing a candidate, the crux of the matter was whether the movie was basically an attack ad against HRC. Quoted directly from the Majority Opinion available here http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf opinion of the Court I B "Before the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002(BCRA), federal law prohibited—and still does prohibit—corporations and unions from using general treasury funds to make direct contributions to candidates or inde-pendent expenditures that expressly advocate the election or defeat of a candidate, through any form of media, inconnection with certain qualified federal elections." So Try again Ken That is from a description of the circumstances leading up to the case. The ruling is quite explicit, from the syllabus since the ruling says the same thing but takes 10 pages to say it, quote: 2. Austin is overruled, and thus provides no basis for allowing the Government to limit corporate independent expenditures. Hence, §441b’s restrictions on such expenditures are invalid and cannot be applied to Hillary. Given this conclusion, the part of McConnell that upheld BCRA §203’s extension of §441b’s restrictions on independent corporate expenditures is also overruled. Pp. 20–51.

DomKen -> RE: Corporation to run for Congress in Maryland (2/3/2010 2:32:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Archer BTW the other side of this has been ignored, Labor Unions and Special Interest groups are now just as free to spend their money on ISSUE ads. Also the ban only prevented the ads being run during the 60 days before the election, days 600 through 61 before the election have remained open to these ads. Once again no. The ruling applies only to corporations and doesn't overturn any of the laws dealing with spending by not for profit corporations so this ruling allows unlimited political spending by for profit corporations only. Wrong as usual. There are numerous references in the ruling that make it clear that there is no distinction between profit and nonprofit organizations wrt for purposes of FOS and campaign contributions. Just one that makes it abundantly clear: "No sufficient governmental interest justifies limits on the political speech of nonprofit or for-profit corpora-tions." But it does not overturn the tax rules limiting not for profit expenditures. So non profits continue to operate under those very Constitutional tax rules which do limit their political spending.

xBullx -> RE: Corporation to run for Congress in Maryland (2/3/2010 2:32:57 PM)
-fast reply- WTF, have we abandon all common sense in this country? So what if some company was dumb enough to waste capital funds on such frivolous ideas. I rather doubt Adams, Franklin, Jefferson and others ever thought we'd become so mentally challanged as to entertain such nonsense. Personally, I'd love to meet the fuck stick that would actually vote for a corporation.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Corporation to run for Congress in Maryland (2/3/2010 2:45:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Archer BTW the other side of this has been ignored, Labor Unions and Special Interest groups are now just as free to spend their money on ISSUE ads. Also the ban only prevented the ads being run during the 60 days before the election, days 600 through 61 before the election have remained open to these ads. Once again no. The ruling applies only to corporations and doesn't overturn any of the laws dealing with spending by not for profit corporations so this ruling allows unlimited political spending by for profit corporations only. Wrong as usual. There are numerous references in the ruling that make it clear that there is no distinction between profit and nonprofit organizations wrt for purposes of FOS and campaign contributions. Just one that makes it abundantly clear: "No sufficient governmental interest justifies limits on the political speech of nonprofit or for-profit corpora-tions." But it does not overturn the tax rules limiting not for profit expenditures. So non profits continue to operate under those very Constitutional tax rules which do limit their political spending. It only limits the tax subsidies for corporations that engage in that activity. It doesnt prevent them from doing it. It is analagous to a church, which can do as much campaigning and politicking as it wants, it just loses its tax exemption. Ie those rules do not limit a non-profits abilities, it takes away special advantages granted to it, leveling the playing field.

Marc2b -> RE: Corporation to run for Congress in Maryland (2/3/2010 2:48:03 PM)
quote: WTF, have we abandon all common sense in this country? So what if some company was dumb enough to waste capital funds on such frivolous ideas. I rather doubt Adams, Franklin, Jeffereson and others ever thought we'd become so mentally challanged as to entertain such nonsense. Personally, I'd love to meet the fuck stick that would actually vote for a corporation. While I agree with you in principle, bear in mind that out of a population of millions - you are bound to find more than a few idiots. Personally, I might be enticed to vote for a Dunkin Donuts in exchange for a free dozen of Bavarian Creams.

InvisibleBlack -> RE: Corporation to run for Congress in Maryland (2/3/2010 2:48:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PenOnBeadedChain In the wake of the conservative Supreme Court's ruling opening the floodgates to even more corporate money corrupting our government, a PR firm in Maryland is now running for Congress in the Republican primary. They have a "designated human" who put in the paperwork, but as a figurehead his name isn't important. Their website boldly states that they will rely on robo-calls and astroturf campaigns to get out the vote. Apparently, the Constitution doesn't explicitly say that a candidate must be a person. Perhaps the Founders simply assumed we would have the common sense not to grant corporations with the rights of people. They were mistaken. http://politics.theatlantic.com/2010/02/murray_hill_inc_for_congress.php http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/02/corporation-says-it-will-run-for-congress/ http://murrayhillweb.com/pr-012510.html There's no end to the nuts out there, is there? Since Maryland is a closed primary state, they'd have to register as Republican first. I suspect that a corporation cannot register. If they have designated someone to register for them - then that "deisgnated human" is the actual candidate. Should he win, he would then be the elected official. That changes nothing. If he chooses to vote the way the corporation that sponsored him tells him to - that's not the same thing as a corporation sitting in the Congress - it's an elected official choosing the vote the way a corporation tells him to - and how is that any different than what we've had for the last decade?

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Corporation to run for Congress in Maryland (2/3/2010 2:54:33 PM)
Does anyone really believe this corporation seriously expects to win - or even considers it a possibility? This is a PR firm! It's a PR stunt! They're making a very valid point, of course, but the whole object of this effort is to give themselves a healthy 15 minutes of fame and then sit back and answer the phones that will be ringing off the hook. The further they can carry this, the better for everyone. While they're elevating their image, they're also elevating the debate on that insane SCOTUS ruling and the larger issue of what that ruling says about what we've let our country become. That's the value of this, and that's the whole point.

InvisibleBlack -> RE: Corporation to run for Congress in Maryland (2/3/2010 3:01:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda Does anyone really believe this corporation seriously expects to win - or even considers it a possibility? This is a PR firm! It's a PR stunt! They're making a very valid point, of course, but the whole object of this effort is to give themselves a healthy 15 minutes of fame and then sit back and answer the phones that will be ringing off the hook. The further they can carry this, the better for everyone. While they're elevating their image, they're also elevating the debate on that insane SCOTUS ruling and the larger issue of what that ruling says about what we've let our country become. That's the value of this, and that's the whole point. You laugh now but not that long ago a dead man won a Senate seat. Corporations are nothing. I'm waiting for cartoon characters to win! [;)]

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125